Search for: "Wise v. CIR"
Results 221 - 240
of 491
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2014, 1:55 pm
Wise, 178 N.C. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:31 am
Cir. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 8:54 am
14 In Eldred v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 12:15 pm
L’Oreal USA, Inc., 458 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2006)) and the Seventh Circuit (EZ Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 7:57 am
Cano v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 5:00 am
ATP Titan M/V, Action No. 13-30587 (5 Cir. 2014), several oilfield contractors, Warrior and others, contracted with ATP Oil & Gas to provide certain services and supplies to the ATP TITAN M/V (”TITAN”), a floating oil and gas production facility owned by ATP Titan, LLC. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 5:34 pm
Missouri Pacific Railroad, 549 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1977)). [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 4:26 pm
Though my sense is that prosecutors are probably less likely to withhold exculpatory evidence if guilt really is crystal clear, since in those cases, it's not worth it -- reputationally, results-wise, or otherwise -- to withhold evidence, since the defendant is likely to be convicted either way. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 4:34 pm
See Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 10:27 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 12:13 pm
See United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 8:18 pm
Cir. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 10:01 am
Cir. 1992). [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 2:52 pm
Cir. 2012); AK Steel Corp. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 2:37 pm
Agro Distribution, LLC, 555 F.3d 462, 468 (5th Cir. 2009). [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 12:25 pm
Boh Brothers Construction Co., No. 11-30770 (5th Cir. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 4:15 am
v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 11:26 am
But someone -- or a group of people, of all sexes -- behind a hidden camera may also be mocking (and perhaps recording) you while you do so.Word to the wise. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 11:28 am
In such situations, the prosecutor may be relying on evidence that exists in the case, but characterizes it differently depending on what suits the prosecutor’s theory, even if the arguments made in both cases are mutually inconsistent (see, e.g., Smith v Groose, 205 F3d 1045, 1050 [8th Cir 2000]; Thompson v Calderon, 120 F3d 1045 [9th Cir 1997], rev’d on other grounds 523 US 538; United States v Salerno, 937 F2d 797, 812 [2nd… [read post]
